championship avoiders ....

Originally posted by Ravello
What's all this fuss about?

Who cares if top players don't want to play in that (crappy) "championship"?

If they want they enter,if not they don't.Period.

I care. You don't. Period.

So you might put on your knees and beg every top player to join the "championship" if not the world will fall apart.........

Booohoooo,why don't they join? Why? :'(:'(:'(

The annual championship is an event that should attract ALL
players, including the top 10 players. If it doesn't, it should either be skipped or the format should change. I'm in for the latter...

Originally posted by cludi
The annual championship is an event that should attract ALL
players, including the top 10 players. If it doesn't, it should either be skipped or the format should change. I'm in for the latter...

Agreed. That's what I was trying to say earlier.

Originally posted by cludi
The annual championship is an event that should attract ALL
players, including the top 10 players. If it doesn't, it should either be skipped or the format should change. I'm in for the latter...

I entered then withdrew 'cos to be honest I don't need the extra gameload.

I don't think that'll upset the applecart though.

Originally posted by cludi
The annual championship is an event that should attract ALL
players, including the top 10 players. If it doesn't, it should either be skipped or the format should change. I'm in for the latter...

Why should it attract "all" players IF the only way to do so is by giving some players special advantages that other players don't get?? If they don't want to play under the rules, why should the rules be changed in the hope that they will play under favorable (to them) and unfavorable (to everybody else) conditions? And if skipping the 1st round doesn't get them in, will they get to skip the second round in 2007 to make it even more of an incentive to enter for the royalty?

It would be far more interesting to make banded championships,divided like tournament categories:class C,class B,class A and experts.
As it is now they could simply do a tournament with the top twenty players facing each other,the result probably would be the same but the tournament more interesting.
The other 350 lower rated players are just "choreography",put there just to call it a big tournament ,like in grouped randoms.

Originally posted by Ravello
It would be far more interesting to make banded championships,divided like tournament categories:class C,class B,class A and experts.
As it is now they could simply do a tournament with the top twenty players facing each other,the result probably would be the same but the tournament more interesting.
The other 350 lower rated players are just "choreography",put there just to call it a big tournament ,like in grouped randoms.

Yeah, but seriously, what is a banded champion? It's not even like a weight classification in boxing. Its like a prize for coming 50th, 100th, 200th etc.

You can't call it a championship, because it isn't.

I like the current format because it is all inclusive, open to everyone, fair to everyone. In the end there will be one winner, one champion.

So, you get to play a lot of chess. but what else are we here for?

If top rated players don't want to join up, it's their loss. You can't be a champion if you can't go the distance. No prizes for playing it safe.

Maybe Quirine didn't get enough recognition for winning the 2005 championship. Maybe instead of star after his name, he should have a crown.

Originally posted by cludi
The annual championship is an event that should attract ALL
players, including the top 10 players. If it doesn't, it should either be skipped or the format should change. I'm in for the latter...

Agreed.

I don't beleive there'll be much time pressure for top players in the first round. Most of their opponents will be no higher than 1700's, so these games will end in 20 to 30 moves. I'd estimate that 80% of the top players games will end in a month.

Perhaps, as an incentive to participate the site should send personal invitations to all players with 2000 and over rarings.

And, as a disincentive of avoidance they should be penalized 100 rating points for not playing.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
Yeah, but seriously, what is a banded champion? It's not even like a weight classification in boxing. Its like a prize for coming 50th, 100th, 200th etc.

You can't call it a championship, because it isn't.

Why not?
Class C Championship,Class B Championship,Class A Championship,Expert Class Championship.

With boxe you couldn't choose a worse example,it fits perfectly my opinion.
In boxe you'll never see a light weight boxing against a heavy weight and then call the heavy weight winner the "champion".........wow,nice champion!

The same is here where a 2200 player gets in the first round a 1100,a 1300 and a 1600.........wow,what a hard task for him.

With the banded system I propose the Expert champion will become champion beating expert players,not stealing candies to kids playing a bunch of low rated people in the first couple of rounds.
The rest of categories (A,B,C) would serve the purpose to give some satisfaction to the other ratings ranges of the site as they would get an interesting and even competition instead of acting just as a choreography in the open version of the tournaments.

Originally posted by infomast


And, as a disincentive of avoidance they should be penalized 100 rating points for not playing.

....and this is the stupidest thing one could say.

If someone doesn't want to play such tournament why the heck should be given a rating penalty?

You can't force people to play this crap by pointing a gun to their head......
One pays to play on this site and should even be obliged to take part in events he doesn't want to take part??

Originally posted by RookRAK
I have to agree here. I think if you really want the top players at RHP to enter, you can't expect them to play in groups of 12.

did you notice the group size is only nine

9

which means 8 opponents at a time.

Originally posted by cludi

Unfair or not, the 2 effects above would result in a lot more participants, I'm sure.

Your point is good. It DOES make the first round much more interesting. Lets face it, the final rounds of this tournament are going to be big guns no matter how you organise it.

Originally posted by Ravello
With boxe you couldn't choose a worse example,it fits perfectly my opinion. In boxe you'll never see a light weight boxing against a heavy weight and then call the heavy weight winner the champion".........wow,nice champion!

Which is exactly why it is not like boxing. In boxing you can have a heavyweight champion, a middle weight champion, a bantom weight etc. These are classifications, not an indication of boxing ability.

In chess we don't have weight classes. True, you could have a regional championship. You could have a championship of all the players whose name start with "A" or "B", etc.

But a person's rating is already an indication of ability - it is not a classification.

For that reason a 1000-1100 tournament victory is fine and commendable. But is the winner a champion? IMO, it would be conferring a very hollow title indeed.

In the New York Marathon, do they also proclaim a champion who finishes first in the 2.5-3 hour mark? And another champion who finishes first in 3-3.5 hour mark? And another champion, being the first who fails to make the final cut-off time?

Banded torunaments are great for what they are, but they don't have a place in a championship.

Originally posted by Ravello
....and this is the stupidest thing one could say.

If someone doesn't want to play such tournament why the heck should be given a rating penalty?

You can't force people to play this crap by pointing a gun to their head......
One pays to play on this site and should even be obliged to take part in events he doesn't want to take part??

Ravello - I will make you take it all back when I cruise to victory 😀